B.C.’s Land Owner Transparency Registry faces questions over its effectiveness as the government refuses to confirm whether any penalties have been issued for non-compliance.
In response to questions from BIV, the Ministry of Finance—the entity tasked to oversee this anti-money laundering (AML) tool—says it would not disclose if any person or entity has been issued penalties for failing to disclose a beneficial interest of a property.
Nor would the ministry disclose how many properties remain non-compliant since all reporting bodies, such as numbered corporations, were required to file transparency reports by November 2022.
Those questions arose after Ron Usher, the former general counsel for the Society of Notaries Public of B.C., presented his concerns about registry enforcement with the standard committee on provincial government finance services on June 19.
“They say we’ve got this wonderful law and we’re doing this for transparency, but two things are remarkable. They are avoiding the important question of how many pre-existing owners remain non-compliant and, of course, the remarkable thing is they refuse to disclose any penalties at this time,” Usher told BIV in an interview.
Usher’s concerns stem from a so-called “freeman of the land” case wherein he discovered that no registry filing had been made regarding the corporately owned property belonging to a self-declared sovereign citizen living near Vernon, B.C.
The registry is the first provincial registry of its kind in Canada and is supposed to be a tool for curbing hidden ownership of residential property, stemming from widespread concerns B.C. real estate is a vehicle for money laundering.
But Usher notes while the registry generated $11 million in filing fees last year—enough, in his opinion, to cover robust enforcement—there have been no reports on how the registry is being enforced.
“The LOTA [Land Owner Transparency Act] provides for many penalties, but as far as I know, zero have been paid. The whole point of the ownership registry was to ensure registry and disclosure of beneficial interests. Yet there are the scofflaws. The bad guys know that there’s absolutely no consequence for failure to comply,” Usher told the committee.
While Usher is a clear supporter of the act and registry, as originally envisioned, he suggested the BC NDP repeal both if it is not being enforced.
“Because the crooks feel, apparently, no need to comply, and there apparently is no penalty for failure to comply,” he said.
In written statements to BIV, the ministry said the registry is “shining a brighter light on hidden ownership and crime.”
The ministry went on to state that “publishing detailed information about compliance and audit programs, including resourcing and penalties issued, could affect the behaviour of reporting bodies and compromise compliance activities.
“The compliance and enforcement team has sufficient staffing to adequately ensure compliance, and at present, rates of compliance have been high.”
The LOTA has the power to issue penalties as high as five per cent of the assessed value of the property, or $25,000 for an individual and $50,000 for a corporation, whichever is greater.
“News of penalties and using all the various different penalty mechanisms available in the act, will encourage people to comply,” Usher said.
“If I wanted to encourage compliance, I'd be talking about who I'm penalizing. And there are some very obvious bad guys you could do the penalties against and that no one in the public would have any sympathy for.”
There are numerous carveouts to not disclose, according to the act, including for government entities and registered trusts. Individuals may also apply for “personal security” reasons.
The ministry disclosed to BIV that the Land Title and Survey Authority (LTSA) has received 435 applications for omission under the act between Nov. 30, 2020 and July 9, 2025. But, the authority does not share detailed information about reasons for applications or locations, said the ministry.
Usher said the registry is a good step for AML policy but he has concerns about how the planned business beneficial ownership registry will work.
Usher said the planned business transparency registry should also be publicly accessible, free to use and, importantly, have a search function for names of company directors, allowing the public to see all the companies an individual is tied to.
“Being able to search by director is critical,” said Usher.
To date, businesses have been required to have a transparency registry of their own, which is only accessible to government and law enforcement officials.
“So now they're going through a new public registry system, which is great, but again, the question to be asked is, will you enforce this? Will you follow up and make sure that when you get notices of changes in companies, are you going to make sure that an update is made to the corporate transparency registry?” asked Usher.
For the period of April 1, 2024 to March 31, 2025, there were 109,414 searches of the Land Owner Transparency Registry. For the period Jan. 1, 2025 to June 30, 2025, there were 71,874 searches, according to the ministry.
